Americas extreme language isn't helping matters in the BP spill. There's a touch of hypocrisy when America protects its own companies who do much worse in India from prosecution. They have made an extreme farce of this which ranks quite low in volume of spill.

I agree with Boris Johnson when he says America should pipe down. “I would like to see a bit of cool heads and a bit of calm reflection about how to deal with this problem, rather than endlessly buck-passing and name-calling."

BP is also being attacked for its quote 'foreignness' with pundits consistently calling it British Petroleum even though it stopped bearing that in 1998 and with US heavyweights like Sarah Palin warning against “naively trusting ,  foreign oil co’s”, while Charles Schumer, Democratic Senator for New York, referred to BP as “a foreign company that has a tremendous amount of liability for this accident”.

In fact figures indicate otherwise. As of December 2009, 40 per cent of BP’s shares were owned in Britain, but 39 per cent were owned in the US.  It has six British directors and six American, and employs 22,000 Americans against only 10,000 Britons.

When will the US companies like Transocean and Haliburton start having their 'backside-kicked' for their role in this. It's conveniently forgotten that the rig was run by a US company, that most of the safety equipment that failed was US made and that  environmental response on the shore was messed up by the US authorities

Should we also now start retrospectively passing legislation holding US companies financially liable for their role in the global  economic meltdown?

UK should be doing more to counter the extreme rhetoric been branded about considering 1 in 6 british pension pound is exposed to BP. Extreme punishments affect executives much less than the owners, you and Is insurance and pension funds.

Yes BP should be liable for its role, just saying stop trying to score cheap political points and deal with the situation.

I'm looking forward to a discussion and I'm sure there will be people with more information who can throw more light on this.

all this should take a back seat until the spill has been contained.

It's true many U.S. polticians will seize this opportunity to score some political points, but it is also very true that everyday people are suffering incredibly from this disaster and have a right to be enraged with the situation. Fishermen especially, many of them 2nd, 3rd, 4th generation. I cannot recount how many interviews I've watched of the locals, many of them crying on camera on how their lives have been negatively impacted by the disaster.

 So right now I have no problem with comments borne from genuine outrage. This is an unprecendented disaster that will have lasting negative effects on a huge chunk of the environment for decades and decades to come. So in light of that, worrying about whether they're being "too harsh" on BP is almost irrelevant I think. Details are emerging everyday of BP's attempts to hide the sad details of the spill, denying the existence of another oil plume or whatever, of them putting on a show for cameras etc. And from their perspective I can understand that. They're a company and have to protect their image and assets. However, this oil spill is bigger than BP's need to do damage control on their image.

 As for their "foreigness" as you put it, well, I guess its only natural people will react like that. It's about perception - though as you put it that perception may not match up with reality. Accidentally burning the carpet  in your own house vs accidentally burning the carpet in your neighbor's house. It would be perceived that since its your house, you'll do a better, more dedicated job cleaning the mess, vs if it were your neighbor's house.

@joeycrack,

Where did you copy and paste that article from?

I don't know that the US has gone too far. What specific comments can be construed as too far?

tpiah:

all this should take a back seat until the spill has been contained.

Naturally I will agree but £58b has already been wiped of its value, putting in serious jeopardy BPs ability to pay dividends which is the livelyhood of many UK pensioners. I sympathise with the American families but while a solution is been found we can have discussions about different ramifications of the spill.

joeycrack:

Naturally I will agree but £58b has already been wiped of its value, putting in serious jeopardy BPs ability to pay dividends which is the livelyhood of many UK pensioners. I sympathise with the American families but while a solution is been found we can have discussions about different ramifications of the spill.

Why should BP be paying dividend at all when it has huge future liabilities which are increasing by the second?

^^took the words right outta my mouth.

  But wait oh, didn't I read somewhere there is a cap on BP's liability? and infact Congress is trying to increase it to $50Bill? or am I mixing it up with something else?

4 Play:

@joeycrack,

Where did you copy and paste that article from?

It is not an article, just my own thoughts. The quotes, facts and figures come from articles in the Times and Guardian.

I don't know that the US has gone too far. What specific comments can be construed as too far?

You have the example of the quotes above. There's a significant anti-British rhetoric going on which in no way helps the 'special relationship'.

Obama backing Congress plans to retrospectively raise the liability limit for claims from $75m to $10bn.

Compared to other companies like Transocean, Haliburton, Anadarko, Mitsui, and Cameron Internaltional which are also liable for this, BP is being picked on unfairly and has paid a very serious as a consequence. BPs shares fell 47% at one point and before anyone screams punish the 'fat cats' a lot shares are owned by institutional investors, your insurance and pension funds.

joeycrack:
Obama backing Congress plans to retrospectively raise the liability limit for claims from $75m to $10bn.

Thanks for clarifying that Joey.

Honestly, while it may be "unfair" to BP, I support the move. With the incredible weight of this disaster, and the cost for clean-up and other issues for decades to come, who should bear the burden? U.S. taxpayers?

I understand what you say that the cost may eventually get passed on to us via institutional vendors, but that is a possibility I think most people will accept in a heartbeat. Only $75mill for liability? that's one CEO's bonus for one year jare. How did they get that deal in the first place self?

4 Play:

Why should BP be paying dividend at all when it has huge future liabilities which are increasing by the second?

you could argue that but a lot peoples pension do rely on BP paying dividends. About £1 in every £6 of UK pensions are exposed to BP.

I sympathise with America and think BP should be liable fairly for the actions. BP says it has enough financial flexibility to cover the expenses in the clean up then I feel congress shouldn't force it not to pay dividends especially when some peoples quality of life depended on that very same dividend.

British Industry is complaining that Obama's rhetoric on BP is too harsh. This is because something like £1 in every £5 pension funds are tied up in BP.

joeycrack:

ou could argue that but a lot peoples pension do rely on BP paying dividends. About £1 in every £6 of UK pensions are exposed to BP.

Ibime:

British Industry is complaining that Obama's rhetoric on BP is too harsh. This is because something like £1 in every £5 pension funds are tied up in BP.

1 in every 5. wow. Well, some people won't be buying/getting that 50inch 1080p flat screen TV this christmas. Time to tighten that belt.

JeSoul:

Thanks for clarifying that Joey.

Honestly, while it may be "unfair" to BP, I support the move. With the incredible weight of this disaster, and the cost for clean-up and other issues for decades to come, who should bear the burden? U.S. taxpayers?

I understand your point, the tax payers shouldn't be made to pay but how about also dishing out the bill to other contractors who run it.  Companies like Transocean, Haliburton, Anadarko, Mitsui, and Cameron Internaltional.

Only $75mill for liability?

Yeah, $75mill does seem awfully paltry

joeycrack:

It is not an article, just my own thoughts. The quotes, facts and figures come from an article in the Times and Guardian.

Sorry, I recognised some sentences which I recalled I had read earlier today and thought you copied an article.

You have the example of the quotes above. There's a significant anti-British rhetoric going on which in no way helps the 'special relationship'.

Obama backing Congress plans to retrospectively raise the liability limit for claims from $75m to $10bn.

Compared to other companies like Transocean, Haliburton, Anadarko, Mitsui, and Cameron Internaltional which are also liable for this, BP is being picked on unfairly and has paid a very serious as a consequence. BPs shares fell 47% at one point and before anyone screams punish the 'fat cats' a lot shares are owned by institutional investors, your insurance and pension funds.

Those particular quotes are relatively modest compared to the scale of the environmental disaster . There is very little in those comments that can be seen as fostering anti-Britishness. I think the Brits are being unnecessarily sensitive.

you could argue that but a lot peoples pension do rely on BP paying dividends. About £1 in every £6 of UK pensions are exposed to BP.

I sympathise with America and think BP should be liable fairly for the actions. BP says it has enough financial flexibility to cover the expenses in the clean up then I feel congress shouldn't force it not to pay dividends especially when some peoples quality of life depended on that very same dividend.

You can't pay dividends when your gross future liabilities are unknown.

4 Play:

Those particular quotes are relatively modest compared to the scale of the environmental disaster . There is very little in those comments that can be seen as fostering anti-Britishness. I think the Brits are being[b] unnecessarily sensitive[/b].

Possibly, they do have a shitty sense of humour. Its just I feel there's a lets bash the foreign company sentiment going around while we allow ours who are co-accomplices get away lightly.

Having said that, BP should fire their PR strategist.

joeycrack:

I understand your point, the tax payers shouldn't be made to pay but how about also dishing out the bill to other contractors who run it. Companies like Transocean, Haliburton, Anadarko, Mitsui, and Cameron Internaltional.

I have no problem with that and I'm sure BP is taking as many down with them as possible. It's just that at the end of the day, the logo on the side of the building says "BP", the ones calling the shots from the top.

Regarding the relative absence of criticisms towards BP's contractors, Transocean et al, that is understandable because these people are just that, BP's contractors. If your neighbour's builder damages your property, you don't waste time prosecuting the builder. It's for BP to seek to indemnify itself by going after its contractors.

Let's not forget, BP does more damage in the Niger-Delta than what you are seeing in the Gulf of Mexico. It's just that the consequences of messing up the US's environment are far more catastrophic for the offending corporation.

As much as BP deserve to pay for their havocs as a result of their continuous and senseless exploitation of the world resources but i think Obama is losing his cool for using the term,'kick ass' in dealing with the BP boss.Or is it just an american thing to be that vulgar,even as a president?

America is filled with too many idiots. The country's only hope is the small number of (hopefully) smart people who try to run the country.

Cohomology:

America is filled with too many idiots. The country's only hope is the small number of (hopefully) smart people who try to run the country.

You jump in2 a discourse with nothin positive to contribute.
Having said that,i'm on the side of Obama on this.BP should stay any action on dividend disbursements until the full scale of the damage to the gulf has been verified.

Talking about using insensitive language what do you make of Tony Haywood's 'I'd like my life back' rethoric?These brits are simply uncouth,take wayne Rooney as another example.In fact they deserve all the bashin they're receivin.

Are you kidding me, BP has distorted the US shoreline for probably decades, the ecosystem has been damaged, the already bad employment situation has gotten worse,

Fishermen cant work, Tourist guides and those tied to the tourism industry cant work and we are talking about paying dividend or pension?

Who gives a flying f*** about their pension when some peoples lives are being destroyed here.

And I think British people need a lesson in PR. Hayward was quoted saying that he needs his life back, is he serious? After his coy denied millions of their lives now he needs his own back

Summarily, Can UK ever do anything right?, From football to oil

As much as BP deserve to pay for their havocs as a result of their continuous and senseless exploitation of the world resources but i think Obama is losing his cool for using the term,'kick backside' in dealing with the BP boss.Or is it just an american thing to be that vulgar,even as a president?

I think the clueless BP boss deserves more. Americans dont mince words and how do you think Obama would feel when some BP is threatening the already volatile job situation and this spill has been tagged Obamas Katrina, Maybe potential loses at the polls if not well managed.

BP's boss should actually stay on the gulf coast and inhale those crude to know hoe people feel from Louisiana, to Alabama, to missisipi and now Florida

cold:


Talking about using insensitive language what do you make of Tony Haywood's 'I'd like my life back' rethoric?These brits are simply uncouth,take wayne Rooney as another example.In fact they deserve all the bashin they're receivin.

Personally it doesn't bother me,they really deserve the bashing but these murderfuckers might be seeing it as a blackman thing,street talks,a new dimension to the game.

I wish somebody can just speak out for what companies like shell,chevron,total,same bp are doing in niger delta like this.Their decades of pollution and exploitations of our father land,nigeria

Not only has it gone too far, it is COMPLETELY irrelevant.

The dumbest comment ever was the one by Salazar, who says BP should pay unemployment benefits to the workers from oil companies laid off because the US GOVERNMENT decided to suspend drilling in the gulf for 6 months.

This beggars belief - if the US Govt decides to SUSPEND drilling, why should BP pay?  

Why should BP NOT pay dividends? When has it ever been the responsibility of government to tell a company how to spend it's own resources?  

As far as I know, not a SINGLE claim for compensation has been denied, neither has any effort been spared by BP and the entire oil industry for that matter to clean this up. The simple fact is that this has NEVER been done before - this is no simple 'spill' - this is not a tanker hitting a sandbank, this is unprecedented.

This is not a matter of perception, it is simply Obama looking for ways to increase his ratings because people feel he has failed to do what is necessary.

All the inflammatory comments being made daily have not stopped ONE DROP of oil from leaking, so the US government should really stop their stupidity and face the matter at hand. BP has said it will meet ALL its obligations, and restore the gulf to its original state - there is nothing more that can be done.

4 Play:

Let's not forget, BP does more damage in the Niger-Delta than what you are seeing in the Gulf of Mexico. It's just that the consequences of messing up the US's environment are far more catastrophic for the offending corporation.

BP has NO OPERATIONS in Nigeria - let's deal with facts and not speculation.

The issue is not 'BP bashing' - it is the use of unnecessary inflammatory statements that only serve to depress the company's share price, in essence threatening the ability of the company to meet its obligations to the spill and not actually doing anything to resolve the problem.

While Tony Hayward has made some unforgivable statements, the fact is that BP continues to do everything possible to stop the leak. That is the issue at hand and that is what needs to be dealt with.

@dayokanu,

I think the clueless BP boss deserves more. Americans dont mince words and how do you think Obama would feel when some BP is threatening the already volatile job situation and this spill has been tagged Obamas Katrina, Maybe potential loses at the polls if not well managed.

Please do not equate brashness with frankness.  Imagine the following scenario:

Junior - Stop that or I'm gonna kick your backside
Mummy - Don't ever let me hear you use that word again Junior
Junior - Why not mummy? I heard the President say the same thing on Primetime TV

BP's boss should actually stay on the gulf coast and inhale those crude to know hoe people feel from Louisiana, to Alabama, to missisipi and now Florida

I don't think there is a need for that. This thing is nothing but an accident. We are human beings.  Accidents do happen. And by the way, you cannot totally blame BP for this mess. The govt is complicit in this wahala. One wonders why these oil companies are forced to go so far offshore and go so deep to explore for oil when we have abundant oil onshore. Just something to consider while nailing BP to the cross.

With the expertise bp has in underwater drilling and the kind of draconic profits they make,they should be able to rectify what ever havoc they cause to environment in a reasonable time,they don't need. american government support to do that,they have the money and manpower but as always,they will want to cut cost to maximize profits at expense of the masses,greedy dragons.

redsun:

With the expertise bp has in underwater drilling and the kind of draconic profits they make,they should be able to rectify what ever havoc they cause to environment in a reasonable time,they don't need. american government support to do that,they have the money and manpower but as always[b],they will want to cut cost to maximize profits at expense of the masses,greedy dragons. [/b]

If it was about 'maximizing profits' wouldn't they have stopped this 50 days ago and resume with their normal operations?

The only ones capable of stopping this problem is BP - the US government knows this, so does everyone else. The focus should be doing everything to stop the leak, get compensation to those who need it, instead of giving pointless interviews and trying to prove tough.

Somehow i think there more to the oil spillage than see the ordinary eyes.

Its being reported that no one from BP gave a call to the family of those who died in the blast

what actually caused that blast?

there's something unusual going on worldwide which is quite strange.

disasters are increasing at a rate not expected in the 21st century,

This seems to be split down the middle with British residents complaining and US residents taking the opposite view

BP is FUGGED!!!


They have DONE IT NOW!

kinda glad and sad it happened.

sad at the Gulf Coast and ALL THOSE WHITE PEOPLE LOSING THEIR LUSH AMERICAN PROPERTY.

Glad an Oil company is in turmoil, FINALLY!!!!